MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407346990 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000001760

Understanding, Avoiding, and Managing Severe Filler Complications

2015· review· en· W2407346990 on OpenAlexaff
Berthold Rzany, Claudio DeLorenzi

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsD2L (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse effectFiller (materials)MedicineIntensive care medicineVascular occlusionSurgeryInternal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Any injectable filler may elicit moderate-to-severe adverse events, ranging from nodules to abscesses to vascular occlusion. Fortunately, severe adverse events are uncommon for the majority of fillers currently on the market. Because these are rare events, it is difficult to identify the relevant risk factors and to design the most efficacious treatment strategies. Poor aesthetic outcomes are far more common than severe adverse events. These in contrast should be easily avoidable by ensuring that colleagues receive proper training and follow best practices.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.127 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations113
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207